ML20077D496
| ML20077D496 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 07/22/1983 |
| From: | Curran D, Jordan W HARMON & WEISS, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8307260538 | |
| Download: ML20077D496 (5) | |
Text
y a
1 e
~
O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
<b
. i.
gg,g,yv '
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS O
.g
'BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEQSJNG AE/gDb
[7 I
tg
'\\/ -
f sf L
In the Matter of
)
/
).
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443
-NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1
)
and 2)
)
)'
NECNP RESPONSE TO APPLICANT AND STAFF OBJECTIONS TO ITS CONTENTIONS ON THE NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE PLAN NECNP filed thirteen contentions based on the New Hampshire State Plan.
The Applicants and NRC Staff have objected to four to those contentions.
NENCP responds below.
Contention 1 NECNP Contention 1 challenges the New Hampshire plan on the ground that the absence of detailed implementing procedures pr ecludes a finding that the plan provides a " reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be implemented."
10 C.F.R. S 50.47(a)(1).
NECNP based this contention on the requirement of NUREG-0654 that the plan include an appendix listing the procedures, and on the fact that more detail, such as what would be included in the
. procedures, is necessary to determine whether the complex
. actions required in an emergency can and will be implemented.
)
8307260538 830722 i.
PDR ADOCK 05000443 O
W
~
"3 The-_second aspect of the. basis for this contention has now b'een' mooted.by the' issuance of procedures for the New Hampshire RE RP. 'NECNP received a copy of those procedures from the i
- Assistant Attorney General for' New Hampshire on July-ll, 1983.
"The plan still fails to satisfy S II.P.7. of NUREG-0654, i'
however, in that it does not contain an index of procedures
'i,mplementing each section of the plan.
NECNP therefore rewords-the contention as follows:
The New Hampshire RERP. violates 10 C.F.R. c5 50.47(a) and NUREG-0654,Section II.p.7, in that-it' fails to include an index 'of procedures required to implement the plan,
' including the sections of'the plan to be implemented by_
each procedure.
Contention 3 Contention 3 challenges the adequacy of the State Plan's arrangements.for_ federal assistance.
The Staff does not object 1
to the admission of the. contention.
Applicants object on the
_ ground that NUREG-0654 S II.C.l.b. does not establish the requirements alleged by NECNP.
Applicants are incorrect.
They rely upon language in a i
long-superceded initial version of NUREG-0654 that was issued "For Interim Use and Comment" in January 1980.
The current version'of NUREG-0654, designated Rev. 1, was issued in November 1980 'and contains the language relied upon by NECNP.
h
- At page 7.2-1, the RERP lists state government agencies, and the dates when their procedures were submitted.
According to
. the cross-index of plan sections to NUREG-0654 sections, this r
list purports to satisfy 5 II.P.7.
The list does not address S II.P.7's explicit requirement that the' procedures themselves be listed according to the sections of the plan that they implement.
s.
o
P T
. Contention 10 This contention challenges tne plan's reliance upon sheltering as a primary protective action in the event of an i
. a c c ide'nt '.
The Staff.does not oppose this contention.
-Applicants do not appear.to oppose the contention, but argue that " As framed it makes no' sense."
-Although we disagree with Applicants, we will reword the contention ~as follows for the sake of clarity:
I The New Hampshire RERP does not provide a " reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a.radiolo^gical emergency" as required by 10 C.F.R.
S 50.47(a)(1), in that the plan relies upon sheltering as a principal protective action in the event of an emergency, but-it neither-contains any~ criteria for determining the circumstances in which sheltering will be used nor provides reasonable-assurance that sheltering is an adequate protective measure for Seabrook in those circumstances.
Contention 11 This contention challenges the evacuation time estimates
. incorporated 11n the State Plan.
Applicants argue that the contention is precluded by.'the Commission's decision in Cincinnati Gas and Electric Co. (Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1), Docket No. 50-358, ALAB-727 (May 1, 1983), which, according to Applicants, established that "the only-issue is' whether or not the plan creates as sufficient a scenario as is reasonably possible."
The NRC Staff argues that
'~
aspects of this contention are precluded by -the Board's rulings a
with respect to NECNP Contentions III-12 and III-13, which involved the Applicant's evacuation time estimates.
e
,h-5
l These arguments are baseless.
The Applicants' evacuation time estimates were sustained, to the extent that they have been thus far, only as estimates in the absence of any off-site planning.
They stand now as purely hypothetical estimates.
The State Plan estimates relate to a limited amount of planning and thus stand on a different foundation than the Applicants' estimates.
The previous ruling cannot bind these estimates, anymore than it can bind estimates that take into account the far more detailed information that will eventually be included inthe local plans.
To hold that the Applicants' estimates are binding on the litigation of later, more complete and more realistic plans, or even that they serve as any sort of benchmark as proposed by the Staff, would bias the ultimate e
conclusions that the Board must reach.
We urge the Board to reject this effort and to evaluate the issue of evacuation time estimates in light of all the facts once all of the' relevant state and local plans become available.
The Applicants' legal argument is also incorrect.
The Zimmer decision did not preclude litigation of evacuation time estimates.
Nor did it establish that 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(a) requires nothing more than the best that can be done in a given situation.
Rather, while agreeing that the regulations do not establish particular time limits, the Board held that such estimates are relevant to licensing proceedings because
" realistic appraisals of the minimum period in which, in light i
79 Y
' r Dof_ existing local' conditions, evacuation'could reasonably be accomplished," are necessary for responsible government ~
officials to'make informed decisions concernir.g the appropriate i
f'
. protective' action.. Slip op. at 16.
Conclusion J
For these reasons, NECNP urges-the Board to admit all of l
-NECNP's contentions with respect to the New Hampshire State l'
' Plan, p
l' Respectfully submitted, i
<D ~ ~,
,, doc
~
Willia'm S. Jordan, III j.
h g s, 6. w ' j, /;
I
'd Diane Curran HARMON &- WEISS 1725 I Street, N.W.
Suite 506 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 833-9070 Counsel for NECNP l,
Dated: July 22, 1983 i
l l
hd mO